2014 Legislative Session: Second Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, March 24, 2014

Morning Sitting

Volume 8, Number 6

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

MONDAY, MARCH 24, 2014

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

SUPPORT FOR ADDICTIONS

S. Hammell: A news broadcast in 2006, and updated in 2009, describes a portion of our community that is, regrettably, much the same five years later.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

"Dozens of homes in B.C. have been turned into rooming houses for addicts who want to kick their habit, but former residents and neighbours complain that some of the privately run 'recovery homes' are overcrowded, unsupervised, dirty and unsafe to live in.

[1005]

"'There's big money in recovery houses,' said former recovery home resident Glenda Small. 'The people who run these places…. They are governed by no rules. They don't have to answer to no one except their pocketbook.' Several former and current residents told the CBC News that there's a wide range of homes, from excellent to downright dangerous. They say the trouble is they are unregulated in B.C., so there's no way to tell the good from the bad from the outside."

These are actually the suburban and rural form of the downtown SRO.

Recovery homes provide room and board to recovering addicts, and some provide services such as AA or 12-step meetings. Some recovery homes are funded through the health authorities or through the ministries of housing or of housing and social development. Some receive $30.90 per diem for each client.

The deregulation of recovery homes happened in 2001, even though some homes continued to receive funding through the health authorities or the Ministry of Social Development. Deregulation, though, eliminated any minimum standards from these homes. While there are many very well run recovery homes, some unscrupulous or unsafe operators wreak havoc on their communities, offering nothing to help clients reintegrate into the community and by maintaining crowded and unhygienic living conditions.

Eleven years after deregulating recovery homes, the B.C. Liberal government brought in a weakened certificate system for registering recovery homes. It's a very, very soft form of oversight. It's a voluntary registration, and there's no monitoring or following-up inspections, and it is complaint-driven.

Last month there were 60 recovery homes registered with the Ministry of Health in British Columbia, and 36 applications were pending. Recovery home operators and others involved in my community of Surrey believe there are over 150 unregulated homes in our community alone and many, many more around the province.

There are regulated homes in Victoria, Vernon, Vancouver, Port Hardy, Coquitlam, Port Alberni, Mission, Langley, Kelowna, Kamloops, Cranbrook, Courtenay and Clinton. These all have some certificated houses, but they run from one to two to three to four houses. In Surrey there are at least 150 unregulated homes. Having that number of homes in any community leads to a huge underplay of people who are trying to recover from drugs and alcohol and being placed in circumstances that are just unacceptable.

I have heard from many people in my neighbourhood regarding the recovery homes, those are that are unregulated. They say that they're overcrowded. The neighbours say they're dirty, they're unsafe, and the advocates complain there is a lack of control over the number of people in the residence, often exceeding fire codes.

The mayor of Surrey has complained, and she has said time and again that municipal councils are not in the health field and they don't have the expertise in it. She says, "We're back to the same old problems, with unregulated boarding houses, drug overdoses and sometimes staff abuses."

[1010]

Oftentimes these homes lack qualified personnel and do not offer recovery assistance or counselling. There is no regulation of programs or monitoring of clients' success. Some non-certified homes lack physical resources such as food, telephones and furniture. Neighbours have complained of drug and alcohol activity going on in some of the homes and victimization of vulnerable individuals, particularly women residing in facilities run by men.

We are, in many ways, judged by how we handle those who are most vulnerable in our society. Clearly, people who are addicted to drugs or alcohol or any of the other addictions that are abundant in our communities need our attention, our monitoring and our assistance to recover from something that, in the end, is a scourge on our communities and something we should be engaged in eliminating or supporting the reduction of the behaviour.

There are many people in our communities who have become victimized by drugs and alcohol. We need, as a community, to be there providing reasonable and credible assistance to those people as they are engaged in an effort to get away from this disease and to become productive members of our society.

G. Hogg: Thank you to the member for Surrey–Green Timbers for those comments. I've had the opportunity to visit a number of the group homes that exist in Surrey. I've had the chance to look at some of those which have
[ Page 2260 ]
been regulated and registered — and in the process, provincially, of registering close to a hundred of those supportive recovery homes.

There are clearly some which are not registered and present some issues that the province has been working on. The estimate, I think, is somewhere around 130 in Surrey. We've seen, with the issues in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver, a number of the people who were in that area moving out to Surrey. I think we probably have higher needs, in terms of the issues that exist there, than do exist in any other part of the province.

We initiated the child and youth mental health plan in British Columbia. We were the first province in Canada, in fact, to have a child and youth mental health plan to start looking at youth as they're coming up. Sometimes we're being — in a notion of being predatory by other users.

There are certainly a number of challenges that we face, which are faced right across our country — the issues in terms of prolific offenders that sometimes end up in these facilities. Prolific offenders are those who have offended at least ten times. We have super-prolific offenders who have offended at least 30 times. A number of those exist within the issues of these recovery homes. We're in the process of trying to ensure that more and more of them become registered.

The municipalities have a responsibility with respect to this, in terms of being able to identify those which are in their neighbourhoods. I recently dealt with the city around one in South Surrey that was presenting some problems to the neighbourhood. With the support of the city of Surrey we were able to ensure that that one did not proceed and was dealt with appropriately. Houses like Trilogy's three homes and Launching Pad, I think, are very well run, function and should be a model by which we start to address these services in the future.

There are a number of options. I think, as we're looking internationally at the delivery of social programs, the whole movement is towards intersectoral models of service delivery, where we start looking at coordinating across a number of different ministries and service providers — whether it's Health, Education, Justice or MSD, that we start to come together in a coordinated fashion.

The Public Health Association of B.C. recently, in their conference entitled…. The theme of it was intersectoral service delivery: how do we look at coordinating more effectively? The corrections association of Canada, at their biennial congress, had the same theme: how do we look at it intersectorally? The World Health Organization is doing studies around that looking at that.

[1015]

I think that in many ways this province, certainly in some of the health promotion models, has led the world. It has received best-practices designations from the World Health Organization for some of the models that we've looked at. We're certainly looking at how now we can have a better coordination, including the municipalities, in terms of looking at and addressing the models that grow out of this.

There are some very creative options that start to exist out of there. I noticed that Ontario has just put out an offering with respect to social impact bonds. Social impact bonds are focusing around homelessness, around employment. They're looking at creative ways that they can use a social impact bond to deal with and manage some of these people who have mental health issues, who have employment issues and are burdened with an inability to get back into a normal lifestyle, get back into integrated models.

The research is showing us that the most effective way that people can actually move forward is that they are able to connect with a number of people. Those in our neighbourhoods — in fact, the one that I talked about in South Surrey…. The people in the neighbourhood who actually can name more of their neighbours feel safer about their community than any other. That study has been done in a number of jurisdictions throughout the world: the more of your neighbours you can name, the safer you will feel.

This is an issue of safety in the community, particularly in those areas which have them that are not zoned because they have six or fewer people within their housing models. We have to look at models for being able to address and manage that. The social impact bond model that Ontario is talking about and that we've been working at….

There are lots of options that are available. Certainly, there are issues that continue to face us. We understand that the models…. In terms of the way that society has been shifting there are a whole bunch of things that we have to look at and manage. This is one of them — that we have a coordinated intersectoral approach to helping to deal with.

S. Hammell: I thank the member opposite for his comments and his unique suggestion of a new approach that we could be taking. After 11 years deregulating recovery homes, we have chaos out there, in some ways.

I'd like to read just a little bit of an excerpt from someone who was living in a recovery house. She says: "The house I was living in had 22 people in it, and I was given $500 a month to cook for 22 people." She added that she was kicked out of the house after she complained about the lack of food.

According to several current and former residents, the recovery homes are run like private businesses, and more opening every month. They rent out spaces to drug addicts and alcoholics who want to kick their bad habits. Typically, the homes collect room and board from addicts by arranging to have their monthly welfare cheques sent directly to the organization.

Residents say they are often left to essentially run the
[ Page 2261 ]
House on their own with little or no direct supervision, and it's just like "animals running the zoo." According to this person and other residents, people who have problems have been kicked out without notice while the recovery home organization keeps the welfare cheque for the rest of the month. They go on.

Also, a discussion of recovery homes inevitably leads to a discussion of the methadone program supported by the B.C. government. Stories have been raised and aired for years around concerns that unscrupulous operators of recovery homes may be collecting kickbacks from pharmacists for prescribing methadone. The methadone program is a costly program to the provincial government, perhaps costing as much as $50 million a year, and the program deserves to be delivered with professional care for the patient at the centre of the delivery service.

I know that if we quote a past Minister of Health, there are concerns about closing down these unregulated homes because the people end up in the streets. But as the government responsible to the citizens of this province, they deserve, and we all deserve, to have a system that puts the patient at the centre and delivers a service that is reputable and professional to people who need it desperately.

[1020]

I think we can do better than we're doing in the recovery home system, and I think that we deserve better.

SMALL BUSINESS

D. Bing: I'm pleased to rise in the House today to speak about how our government is working for small business in British Columbia. In British Columbia small businesses are the backbone of the economy, making up to 98 percent of all businesses. In addition to ongoing business initiatives, our government has also had pursued partnerships with business-focused organizations in our communities.

The strategic locations of Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows make us a significant centre for economic development. It also provides a wealth of investment opportunities, including tourism, retail, aviation, transportation, agribusiness, manufacturing and technology.

My wife and I established Pitt Meadows' first dental practice. As a business owner, I understand the obstacles that small business must overcome in order to succeed.

I still recall the anxiety that every new business goes through as you wait for the phone to ring with new customers. I remember worrying about how we were going to pay our bills and pay back the massive bank loan that we took out to start up the business. I recall sharing the concerns of all new business owners, wondering how you were going to meet the monthly payroll as business fluctuated up and down in those early years.

Like most new small business owners, however, the hard work, long hours and determination paid off, and we did develop a successful business.

Being a small business owner also helped me to develop relationships throughout the community, and in time the community became my focus and my extended family. This ultimately led me to serve on city council, where the concerns of other business owners and the citizens became my concerns. This participation guided my goals and priorities as I played a small part in Pitt Meadows' growth and development into the vibrant and thriving community that it is today.

I understand the challenges that small businesses face in British Columbia, and I am confident that our government does as well. Our government has implemented a number of initiatives to help small business face these challenges.

One local initiative I'd like to mention is an initiative called BusinessSTART. This program, launched in Maple Ridge last October, is a free resource program for home-based, small and microbusinesses in the North Fraser region of Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows and Mission. BusinessSTART is designed to connect entrepreneurs with the information and resources they need to get a solid start.

The assistance this initiative provides is through a variety of products: personalized intake consultation, a customized resource package, a BusinessSTART kit — free seminars, 24-7 access to the BusinessSTART website, a newsletter and a certificate of completion.

Our community has already had success stories. Some of the businesses that have received recognition in both Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows include Lougheed Tire; Jim's Pizza; the Europe Bakery; Pacific Owl; the Stomping Grounds café, bistro and catering company; Olá Puppy; and the One Love Skateboard Shop.

The Small Business Roundtable, an additional small business resource, has worked to develop programs and initiatives for a better small business environment. One way the Small Business Roundtable has contributed is through regulatory reform. While there is much more to do, our government has decreased the amount of regulatory burden by almost one-half.

The Small Business Roundtable recently presented Open for Business Awards to seven municipalities that showed exemplary leadership, innovation and support for small business communities, including a $10,000 award to fund a local small business–friendly project.

Recently our government released a report called Small Business: Doing Business with Government Project. This doing-business-with-government project builds on the key principles of the B.C. small business accord, established just over a year ago to create long-term growth opportunities for small business through government procurement. This report contains 12 recommendations that reduce barriers for small business and makes it easier for them to conduct business with government.

Just like the makeup of our province, our government
[ Page 2262 ]
recognizes the need to respect and honour diversity in small business. Diversity creates more vibrant communities, and it shares different perspectives. It fosters understanding and compassion for one another and, in turn, creates a more unified community.

Our Premier has shown her unwavering commitment to diversity in small business when, this February, she appointed 11 women from across British Columbia to sit on a women's economic council.

[1025]

These women will provide advice to the Premier; the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and Minister Responsible for Labour; as well as the Minister of State for Tourism and Small Business on issues and economic opportunities for women that will strengthen B.C.'s economy.

Small business drives the provincial economy not only by creating and maintaining jobs but also through its production of goods and services which will support families and stimulate further economic activity. Our government continues to cultivate opportunities to help small business thrive throughout British Columbia.

S. Fraser: I'd like to thank the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows for his thoughtful comments about small business. I do agree with some of his comments that small business is, indeed, the backbone of the economy of British Columbia, so important to communities. The money that is derived by small businesses helps communities. It's all spent in communities. So I agree on that point, but I'm going to diverge at this point from the member's comments.

His statements about this government understanding the challenges of small business — I don't agree. While issues around reducing barriers and regulatory restrictions may seem important, they are icing on a cake, and it's a cake that this government has forgot to make. This government has led us to continuing to have the worst job performance and job creation in the country. There are words, there are slogans, and then there are the realities, and that hurts everyone in this economy, especially small businesses.

I would note that we have the highest poverty rates in the country. We have the highest income gaps in the country, and that means far less people are able to participate in the economy at the local level. That's a big problem for small business especially, and the communities that benefit from small businesses.

At the most fundamental level, this government is failing small businesses in every way. On the high level, on the icing level, they are talking about regulatory restrictions being removed and reducing barriers, when at the base level of the economy this government has actually mismanaged it in the worst way we've seen possible. In my constituency of Alberni–Pacific Rim, for instance, and all over the coast, all over Vancouver Island…. In this place, in Victoria, this government is making reckless cuts to ferry services in the north and all over the coast which will directly and adversely affect small businesses.

So this member is missing some of the fundamental premises around how small businesses work and what they need to work appropriately. In both districts 69 and 70, school districts in my constituency, we're seeing school closures. Probably six school closures are being contemplated right now. Losing schools is a part of losing the hubs of communities and directly affects small business in an adverse way.

I would also like to get to a very specific issue. I spoke in the House two weeks ago about the importance of literacy and literacy training in British Columbia. I think everyone agrees. Everyone seemed to agree. They all applauded during my statement, including the minister when I was looking right at him. I was telling this House about the importance for us, as legislators, to recognize protecting literacy programs.

Well, this government, this minister, we've learned today, is drastically cutting the funding to Decoda systems — the organization, the glue, for all of the literacy organizations in the province. Without allowing people to raise themselves up….

Literacy is the most fundamental way to raise people up and participate in the economy, in small businesses, by owning small businesses and by using them as clients and as customers. To not allow them the most basic fundamental right of literacy — by stripping that away, by taking the funding away from the core organization in the province, Decoda — this government is doing drastic and dangerous moves towards hurting the economy of this province, and small businesses will face that fundamentally.

[1030]

I want to urge this member to talk to his Minister of Education and get him to reinstate the funding to Decoda and make sure that the funding is there for the programs, for adult literacy programs in my constituency, and that affects Port Alberni, Tofino, Ucluelet and the Bamfield community school. They'll all take hits on that.

Those people that want to raise themselves up and participate in the economy and the small business economy of this province are directly impaired by this minister. This is a direction that the member across the way could take in his final conclusions here — that he will commit to working with the minister to make sure that funding is reinstated.

D. Bing: I appreciate the member opposite's comments. However, we clearly disagree on a number of points. One of the objectives of our government is to cut red tape and to increase small business participation. This is not an overnight job. This is something that we've been working on and will continue to work on.

One of our goals is to improve information and re-
[ Page 2263 ]
sources to support small business. We would like to promote best practices. We would like to have forms in plain languages. We'd like to reduce red tape. We are trying to implement less paperwork for small businesses. We are getting down to a two-page RFP for small businesses to make submissions.

We would like to increase the awareness of opportunities to sell to government. We are doing this by improving the B.C. Bid function. We would like to reduce or eliminate fees for this process. We think this will help small business. We'd like to establish accountability for reporting out on results. This would enable small businesses to understand exactly where they stand when they make a submission. Right now there isn't enough manpower to do that. What we'd like to do is have a central resource that small business can consult in doing this.

We'd like to reduce barriers facing small business and increase their opportunities. As I have mentioned, it is not easy to be a small business owner. Many small businesses struggle for years. It takes long hours and hard work in order to succeed, and this government would like to help those members to be successful.

A BUMPY RIDE FOR RECYCLING IN B.C.

L. Popham: I rise to debate the proposed overhaul to B.C.'s successful recycling program. The new system, run by Multi-Material British Columbia, is slated to begin in less than eight weeks. The Premier has called the introduction of MMBC a bumpy road. For many B.C. businesses, residents and environmentalists, this road is not bumpy; it's utterly impassable.

In my view, this new system will not represent the best interests of British Columbians, B.C. businesses or the environment for five simple reasons. First, incorporation documents reveal that MMBC is a dummy corporation. Although MMBC is registered as a society in B.C., in truth it is neither a society nor British Columbian. It is fully controlled by Robert Chant, the Toronto-based vice-president of Loblaws, and John Coyne, the Toronto-based vice-president of Unilever Canada and their employee.

Two impacts are critical to understand. One, loss of competition. They are setting up a system that is dangerously close to monopoly. This will inevitably lead to a decrease in quality of services and increase in price. The supposed free marketers over there seem to need an economics refresher.

Two, loss of democratic and local control. Municipalities are directly accountable to residents. Councillors and staff hear immediately when there are problems. If those problems aren't solved, councillors pay the price at the next municipal election. The contracts that municipalities have been pressured into signing include inadequate funding formulas, business-killing penalties for non-compliance and even a gag clause which prevents them from reporting out on recycling data.

By allowing MMBC to be created as a dummy corporation for Ontario big business, the government ignores that the short-term profit-maximization ethos of corporate titans will often conflict with the best interests of the people and the environment of our province.

[1035]

The second criticism I want to raise is that the changes the government is pushing through for recycling in B.C. will lead to consumers getting gouged with yet another hidden tax. This tax is on recycling. MMBC will be funded by applying a uniform new cost to big business, which will pass it on to consumers. But in many municipalities we already are paying the cost of recycling on our property taxes. Municipalities have been clear that this amount won't be rebated to the taxpayers, but the government did not require this rebate when setting up the new system. The slogan for MMBC should probably be: "Recycle once, but pay twice."

Moreover, in parts of B.C. people will end up paying the costs of recycling through this hidden tax, but not all will be able to access MMBC services — Kamloops, for example. They will be paying for nothing.

My third point is that the government is allowing profit to be extracted by the businesses behind MMBC while externalizing much of the business risk onto municipalities and small business. The monopolistic system this government has set up gives the small players, including our municipalities, no leverage to bargain for fair terms. Small but established companies, like Gibsons Resource Recovery Centre, are watching as their business models are ruined.

Stew Young, mayor of Langford, says the MMBC plan is fatally flawed. He notes that the average contamination of mixed residential recycling picked up by haulers is 13 percent, but MMBC is putting a $5,000 fine on loads from haulers if contamination rates are over 3 percent. Young says 3 percent is "unobtainable."

My fourth point is that this system is fatally flawed because it fails to create price signals or incentives for consumers to recycle. The refundable beverage container program is an excellent example of what does work. Consumers see at the time of purchase the environmental cost of their spending habits and are therefore incentivized to change. Once the product is consumed, there is a profit motivation — the deposit — to ensure it's recycled.

This system has proven successful for years, and yet the government, in its zeal to kowtow to big business, is not expanding it. In fact, the government is allowing MMBC to undermine these established businesses. For example, MMBC will collect refundable containers themselves, pocketing the value of the resource and reducing the market share for established successful businesses, such as Return-It depots.

Finally, the government has proposed to change the recycling program. It fails the most important test of all.
[ Page 2264 ]
They don't address the environmental challenge that led to the recycling movement in the first place. In reality, MMBC won't even capture 50 percent of total recyclables out there. The 75 percent number we hear ad nauseam is a soft target for three years from now. It doesn't take into account at least half of the recyclables in B.C., which are generated outside the household.

Furthermore, I challenge the government to provide any evidence that the logic supposedly behind the MMBC change — namely, the concept of extended producer responsibility — will lead to reductions in packaging. It will not. The simple truth is that packaging decisions are determined by far more consequential drivers than a very tiny per-unit cost which is hidden from consumers.

For substantive environmental change, we need to demand a policy based on full life-cycle analysis of packaging, and then we need a government with the courage to push change based on design-for-environment principles. What we have instead is MMBC, a fatally flawed policy outcome from a government without sufficient courage to face our environmental challenges.

E. Foster: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this very important topic this morning.

The purpose of any waste reduction program is exactly that — to get waste out of the landfills. I've spent a lot of years in local government. I chaired the Solid Waste Management Committee for the North Okanagan regional district. I helped put together the solid waste management plan for the North Okanagan regional district. We were leaders in the program around the province.

In the village of Lumby, where I was the mayor — councillor at the time — we introduced voluntary curbside recycling, and then a year later we went to a two-bag garbage limit. We saw our garbage tonnage drop and our recycling tonnage go up markedly just simply because people didn't have the option. Well, they had the option. They could go to the village office and buy a little tag for a dollar and put it on their extra garbage bags. By getting into people's conscience and also their pocketbooks, we were able to change their thinking.

[1040]

In 1986 or '87 — my memory is getting a little slack — I attended an Okanagan Mainline Municipal Association conference in Osoyoos. One of the workshops was on solid waste management. I signed up for it because I had no idea what solid waste meant. Ten minutes into it I found we were talking about garbage. They talked at that time about the effect on communities and the environment that solid waste was going to have into the 21st century, and certainly, we're having this discussion here today because of that.

The purpose of MMBC is to do exactly what it's intended to do, and that's to reduce the amount of waste in the system. There are all kinds of different ways. You look at the Lower Mainland now. They haul their garbage, if you will, their waste, to Ashcroft and dump it. Well, eventually, those landfills are going to be full, and we're not going to have an opportunity to do this. MMBC came forward as an opportunity to change people's way of doing business and to put the onus on the original producers of the waste product or the recyclable product to reduce.

It was interesting to hear the member opposite bring up the effect on small business and so on. I've been in this House for five years. I would suggest that in that five years I have never seen members of the opposition support any initiative that we've brought forward to help small business or medium-sized business. So it's quite refreshing to hear them come forward and talk about the benefits to small business.

The program was initiated back in 2011, or the discussion was initiated in 2011, and we made a lot of changes from the original concept. One of the big ones was that, with consultation with small business, medium-sized business, chambers of commerce and municipalities around the province, we changed the criteria.

One of the big things for the smaller businesses…. They were concerned and justifiably so. There are three criteria that if you meet any one of those three, you're exempt from the program: if you do under $1 million of annual revenue; if you produce under a tonne of recyclables; or if you operate as a single point of retail sale and as a sole proprietorship or you're not a member of a franchise or a bigger organization.

So for all those smaller businesses, that opportunity has changed. We're pleased to see that. We've got all kinds of validation on this — chambers of commerce, local government, opportunities for local government to either continue the way they're doing it or to have MMBC put their contractors in there to pick up. It's not going to change the roadside blue box programs.

I know that in the village of Lumby where I live there's not going to be any change to the pickup. It's going to be picked up the same as it always was.

As far as the taxes go…. To the member who commented about in the past there was the opportunity for people within the communities to change their local government if they're not happy, if those local governments don't choose to either pass that savings along to their constituents or put that saving into some other type of a program that would see waste going out of the stream, then the folks in the community have the opportunity to change their local government. We do that every three now. In the future we'll be looking at four years.

Those opportunities are still there. That doesn't change anything at all. Thank you to the member for bringing this up.

L. Popham: I note that the response from the member opposite failed to deal with the information I presented
[ Page 2265 ]
here today. It's a very complicated issue, and I think one of the problems is that most members don't understand the implications of MMBC.

Perhaps the information that MMBC is, in fact, a dummy corporation could have been addressed by the member. As a first step, I ask the member to explain the inclusion of the acronym B.C. in the name MMBC. The registrar of societies requires written permission from the government before it allows our province's name to be used, and permission was, in fact, given. Obviously, there was an error — deliberate, I suspect.

[1045]

What criteria did the government use to allow this abuse of the province's good name? I call on the government to either immediately withdraw this permission or ensure that at least 50 percent of the directors and members of the society reside in B.C.

EPR, or extended producer responsibility model, which transfers funding and management to corporate-controlled associations, does not have a record of success in Canada or internationally. Ontario has a 25 percent recycling rate after years of EPR. The European Union, an early adopter of EPR, has an overall recycling rate of 35 percent. Countries in Europe with successful recycling rates have adopted other measures, such as the deposit system, high tip fees and disposal bans.

The government would have us believe that business is in support of this plan, and of course, many — like Wal-Mart, Coca-Cola, Procter and Gamble — are, because it advances their interests as opposed to the interests of the environment and of British Columbia. But the fact remains that many other businesses are strongly opposed. For example, business associations opposed include the B.C. Agriculture Council, Newspapers Canada, Community Newspapers Association of B.C. and Yukon, the B.C. Bottle Depot Association and Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters.

The newspaper industry estimates that MMBC will cost their struggling industry $10 million a year and are refusing to participate, throwing the viability of this entire project into question.

What will people of B.C. think when they learn the truth behind MMBC? If government doesn't take a step back, B.C.'s recycling system is going to end up in a giant dumpster. A huge amount of effort has been invested into getting people to voluntarily recycle and change their habits. This government has put the public confidence in our recycling system at risk.

To conclude, the control of recycling should never have been outsourced to the large corporate interests based in Ontario and abroad. This is a profound failure. This program needs to be paused and the entire concept reconsidered. We owe it to the people of B.C. to get this right.

BENEFITS OF LNG DEVELOPMENT
ALREADY BEING REALIZED IN B.C.

J. Sturdy: Woodfibre LNG opened the doors to its new headquarters in Vancouver two weeks ago. It's just another step towards the development of a liquefied natural gas industry here in British Columbia. Woodfibre LNG is a natural gas liquefication and export project being developed not in northern B.C. but in Squamish, B.C.

This is an opportune time for Squamish, and it's an opportune time for British Columbia. The development of LNG will create, and already is creating, jobs in this province, and it could create more — tens of thousands more jobs and hundreds of billions of dollars of new economic activity. This is not something that we're just speculating about. This is something that's actually happening right now. There are impacts and benefits all around this province.

Woodfibre LNG is one of only many LNG projects developing plans to export our natural gas to the energy-thirsty Asian markets — other projects like Aurora LNG, Discovery LNG, Douglas Channel energy project, Kitimat LNG, Kitsault Energy, LNG Canada, Pacific NorthWest LNG, Prince Rupert LNG, Stewart LNG, Triton LNG, WCC and Woodside. Woodside, as a matter of fact, just signed an agreement with the province in January to negotiate a long-term tenure for an LNG facility on the south side of Grassy Point.

Then just in the paper last week a newly minted Vancouver-based company called Steelhead LNG announced that Mr. Geoff Plant, past Attorney General of this province, will be joining the company. The quote I read in the paper was that Mr. Plant recognizes the tremendous potential that LNG has to create a wide range of long-term benefits for British Columbia, and this government agrees.

Although most plants are planned for communities in northern B.C., there will be construction, maintenance, operations and logistics all over the province in exploration, approvals, production through transmission to compression and export. Our government's aspirations to build an LNG export industry are taking place with steady and concentrated actions to ensure that British Columbia is ready to compete on a global scale. Policy changes, development of legislation and regulation, promotion, training and human resources and much environmental assessment and protection work is taking place.

Our government continues to develop and implement a competitive tax and policy environment critical to developing the LNG industry in B.C. The LNG income tax will be a two-tiered tax with a tier 1 tax of 1.5 percent and a tier 2 tax of up to 7 percent, with final rates to be determined in legislation ready for the fall. LNG income tax will apply to the income from liquefication of natural gas at LNG facilities in B.C.
[ Page 2266 ]

[1050]

Apart from setting up a tax regime, our government's deep-well royalty credit and infrastructure royalty credit program will also help to increase the competitiveness of our province's natural gas sector and support the long-term prospects of the industry.

Because of the credits program, companies will increase their investments. It's expected that infrastructure alone — for example, the infrastructure royalty credit program — will generate over $320 million in new capital spending by the oil and gas industry. Over 1,500 jobs will be created by this activity, ensuring that B.C. remains globally competitive in attracting investment for oil and gas development for the benefit of our economy.

This government has met with companies and investors from around the world to ensure that they clearly understand the opportunity and value of investing in B.C. We're supporting this tremendous opportunity for growth with actions which ensure that British Columbians are equipped with the skills necessary to secure new jobs.

Just recently, last December our government, via the Natural Gas Workforce Strategy Committee, provided $75,000 to the Northern Lights College and its centre of excellence to develop a new entry-level program for those who want to work in the industry. This program should be ready by July and will be made available for delivery by public post-secondary institutions in B.C.

Just last week I visited BCIT and met with faculty and staff to learn how that institution, hand in hand with industry, is preparing for the current job market as well as for jobs of the future. It's a very impressive facility, and the staff are working hard at developing curriculum to meet the needs of today and tomorrow.

Our government is committed to ongoing communications with First Nations and stakeholders to work together, ensuring that we're meeting the highest environmental standards so we can strive to produce some of the world's cleanest liquefied natural gas. Each LNG project will undergo an independent environmental assessment administered by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and the B.C. environmental assessment office.

Ongoing communications with the full spectrum of interests is very important. That's why our government is hosting the international LNG in B.C. conference May 21 to 23 at the Vancouver Convention Centre. The second annual conference will bring together our community leaders, First Nations leaders, educators, environmental leaders, elected officials and LNG proponents from across British Columbia and around the world to exchange ideas and build strong partnerships together.

The LNG industry will create unprecedented economic growth and well-paying jobs, and the opportunity is on our doorstep. In the case of West Vancouver–Sea to Sky it's already happening, as it is all around B.C. With Woodfibre LNG in my riding — and many other projects that dwarf Woodfibre around the province — benefits and jobs are accruing as industry invests time and capital towards the development of natural gas production and export infrastructure. This government is championing LNG development, and British Columbia will benefit for generations to come.

R. Austin: Thanks to the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky for his comments and for bringing forward this motion this morning. He mentioned, of course, a potential new LNG plant in his riding.

I think it's fair to say, as the MLA for Skeena, that I think I'm the person in this Legislature who has witnessed the greatest benefit so far from any potential LNG developments because, of course, this started in Kitimat probably about six years ago now.

In fact, the largest project, which has spent the most capital, sits in the district of Kitimat — that, of course, being the Chevron-Apache project. It is truly inspiring to see what has been done and the amount of dollars that has been spent just in preparing the site. They've essentially moved a side of a mountain in order to create the terrain that's required for a site, and some people say that they've spent between $800 million and $1 billion just in pre-preparation.

When you talk about LNG, the numbers are quite staggering to think of. Companies come in and can invest up to $3 billion, I'm told, and then might even walk away and not make a final investment decision. The numbers are staggering, and it's made a lot of people quite successful in terms of the jobs that are being created.

I think if you live in the northwest you'll also see the fact that sidelines have happened. We have WestJet coming into the Kitimat-Terrace regional airport. It took ten years of us lobbying for a company like that to come in, and now they're here. And why? They're here, largely, bringing workers in and out from other parts of British Columbia to work on these projects.

[1055]

It will, of course, increase production and exploration in the northeast. People need to understand that most of the gas that's been brought out of the ground in the last ten or 15 years has in fact been exported to the United States or east to the populated provinces of Ontario and Quebec. Those markets are now rapidly drying up as the United States has found so much of its own gas.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

If we do not have an LNG industry, if one of these projects at least does not come to fruition, we will actually see it hurt the B.C. economy overall and certainly hurt the northeast because of all the infrastructure that's been built up there over the last 20 years.

I think one of the other benefits that have been accru-
[ Page 2267 ]
ing so far, of course, is also the increase in environmental studies that have happened, especially in the northwest of British Columbia, as well as all of the increased consultations with First Nations. It's good to see that this is an industry that, by and large, has First Nations support throughout the region — in stark contrast, I might add, to Enbridge and their gateway project of bringing bitumen through northern British Columbia.

We've certainly seen a lot of benefits accruing thus far, but let me also speak to the other side of the ledger. Whenever small communities suddenly see a rapid increase in development, it's a huge challenge. And what are we seeing in the northwest? Well, let me go back to WestJet moving in and bringing in workers from all over B.C. I think those of us who live in the northwest want to see the opportunity that LNG brings to us in the region: jobs locally.

We have had an economy in the northwest that was devastated by the manufacturing shutdown capacity of the forest industry, and people actually left the northwest over the last ten to 15 years. It's the only part of B.C. that lost population. So what people are hoping for is that the workers that are currently filling the planes coming in to work, for example, on the Alcan smelter rebuild or doing preparation work for LNG…. If an LNG plant comes to fruition, we don't want to see simply loads and loads of workers coming from outside the region.

The member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky mentioned some major investments in the college in the northeast and at BCIT. What we want to see is that investment happening at Northwest Community College. We want to see as many people increase their capacity and their skills so that if one of these projects comes to fruition, it is first and foremost local people who benefit from those jobs rather than seeing what we're seeing today, which is planeloads of people coming from outside the region.

We also need to understand that while these companies are spending millions and millions of their shareholders' dollars, the government also has a responsibility to look into some of the infrastructure needs in the region. I brought this up before, and I'll say it again

There is one bridge in Kitimat — one bridge — that takes you from the residential side of the community to all the industrial development that takes place on the west side of the Douglas Channel. That bridge is falling apart. When the mayor and the council say that we need some help to fix this, the government says: "Well, we don't have any dollars coming in yet. We need to have a final investment decision. We need to see actual revenues coming in."

That's way too late to be making these kinds of infrastructure needs. There are things that need to be done to take advantage of this.

J. Sturdy: Thank you to the member opposite in recognizing that we are generally moving in the right direction and supporting the industry.

You know, I can speak best to what's going on in my riding of West Vancouver–Sea to Sky and our little project called Woodfibre LNG, which is a very small project — about 1/10 the size of any one of those plants proposed for the north. But it is in a great spot. It's on the west side of Howe Sound, an old pulp mill site that badly needs remediation.

This LNG project will actually do that remediation job. It's a water-access site only, so there's limited other industrial opportunity there — on deep water about six kilometres from town. One of the best things is that it does have two high-voltage power lines running through it, which previously fed the pulp mill and could very well be suited towards powering this facility.

Speaking to the member opposite, it is in fact in the municipality, so it will provide municipal or local benefits to the community. In 2007, when the pulp mill was closed on that site, in one fell swoop the municipality lost $2 million in property taxes and over 600 jobs. This project could go some way towards rebuilding some of those employment opportunities and replacing some of those taxation impacts.

[1100]

It really is impressive how much work has been done over the last several years by Woodfibre LNG. In February there were three people on the team, and today there are over a dozen, with an expectation of 20 by year-end. By then it'll be a $40 million investment in the province on the site on remediation — engineers, consultants, biologists, contractors, legal, rent, fuel, vehicles, graphics, web, IT, printing, advertising, hotel, restaurant, marine. It goes on. These economic impacts are felt right now in the community of Squamish. This doesn't factor in the work that Fortis is doing in considering how to increase its capacity to supply this export business.

Woodfibre LNG has also signed a development agreement with Fortis, initiated a systems impact study with B.C. Hydro, commenced engagement with the Squamish Nation, obtained export licence approval from the National Energy Board, entered into a process of a federal and provincial environment assessment and had its first round of consultations, set up a head office in Vancouver in the riding of Vancouver–West End and will be locating multiple facilities in Squamish.

It just demonstrates how much activity with such a small project is happening right now. If the environmental assessments are approved, they hope to be in service by 2017, producing 2.1 million metric tonnes per annum of liquefied natural gas. Woodfibre is just one little project. It's dwarfed by others. We extrapolate it out, and we can see how much activity and benefit can come to our province, and the province is working step by step on a daily basis to build the industry for the benefit of all.
[ Page 2268 ]

Hon. T. Lake: I now call private members' motions.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 8 without disturbing the priorities of motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members' Motions

MOTION 8 — PROSECUTION OF NEGLIGENCE
IN WORKPLACE DEATH AND INJURY CASES

H. Bains: It is my honour to rise today to move the following motion.

[Be it resolved that this House urge the Government to pursue prosecutions of corporate executives and directors responsible for workers' health and safety in cases of negligence causing workplace death or serious injury.]

This can be achieved by adopting the following policies.

(1) A dedicated Crown prosecutor to deal with workplace fatality and serious injury cases. This prosecutor will become an expert in reviewing these investigations against section 217.1 of the Criminal Code and therefore more accurately determining the likelihood of conviction.

(2) Trained police services on section 217.1 to ensure that the police understand the law and know what to look for in workplace fatality and serious injury cases in order to collect the best evidence to support the Crown counsel's decision-making.

(3) Make mandatory police investigations of all workplace fatalities and serious injuries. Police investigations are necessary in order to determine if criminal negligence exists. As they are trained to collect and weigh criminal evidence, these investigations must be separate from the occupational health and safety regulatory investigations but can be done in collaboration.

(4) Train WorkSafe B.C. inspectors on section 217.1 to ensure WorkSafe inspectors conduct investigations into workplace fatality or serious injury cases and collect the best evidence to support Crown counsel decision-making.

(5) Crown and police to develop specialized policies for workplace fatality or serious injury cases similar to policies such as for domestic violence.

In 2004 Bill C-45, or the Westray bill, was enacted with unanimous support of all the parties in the parliament. This was 12 years after the tragic Westray mine disaster that took the lives of 26 miners, despite serious safety concerns raised by employees, union officials and government inspectors. The company instituted few changes, and this very preventable disaster occurred.

In B.C., on average, 150 workers die at a workplace every year. This is more than 1,350 unnecessary deaths in British Columbia since the Westray bill, and no one has been held responsible for those deaths.

This motion helps us hold those in authority accountable if they fail to protect workers' health and safety and cause death or serious injury at the workplace. In B.C. we have many of our own Westray disasters along with all those deaths that I mentioned earlier. Babine sawmill and Lakeland sawmill explosions killed four and injured 42 others very seriously. In the Babine case no one has been held accountable so far.

Sarbjit Kaur Sidhu, Amarjit Kaur Bal and Sukhwinder Kaur Punia were farmworkers killed travelling to work in a 15-passenger van.

[1105]

Mushroom farm workers Ut Tran, Han Pham, Jimmy Chi Wai Chan died while Michael Phan and Thang Tchen were left with permanent brain damage after they were exposed to hydrogen sulfide and low oxygen conditions in a confined space.

Sam Fitzpatrick, a 24-year-old rock scaler, died while working on a construction project when a large rock rolled down a slope into his work area.

John Wilson drowned on February 28, 2008, while working near Merritt. John was working in an excavator that tumbled into a tailing pond.

Lyle Hewer, a sawmill worker, was asphyxiated in a hopper connected to a hog — a machine that converts wood waste into chips.

Then there are dozens of unknown workers who have been exposed to asbestos while working for certain asbestos and drywall removing contractors, without adequate knowledge of the risk or protection for their safety. Most of these workers were under 18, some as young as 14. They were told to run if they saw a WCB safety inspector.

These are all preventable incidents that I mentioned here. Those responsible for prevention failed, yet no one has been held accountable. We now must do our due diligence as lawmakers. It is our duty to ensure workplace accountability by giving the tools needed by our investigators to collect evidence that will be acceptable to the Crown for successful convictions.

In closing, we believe this is a necessary step to send a message to employers that their employees are not just an insignificant part of doing business. If their safety and well-being are treated with disregard, then there will be significant and costly consequences for doing so.

We have seen too many people die in the workplace because of the negligence of those who have a duty under the law to protect their health and safety. Then they fail and no consequences. As a result, there's no deterrence. As a result, people continue to die. This will help us solve that problem and those people responsible for the health and safety of workers will be held accountable if they fail to do their duty.

M. Morris: As the representative for Prince George–Mackenzie, I've been personally affected by both of these
[ Page 2269 ]
incidents up there, and I've got friends and family members who have been involved in this.

It's not government's role to pursue prosecutions. That's why we have a Crown counsel agency. That's why we have other agencies involved in the investigations of matters such as this. The police attend every single incident like these, and their investigation ceases the moment they can rule out foul play. From then on it's the agency responsible for the investigation.

It is, however, our role to ensure that we have effective agencies in place to monitor and investigate workplace safety. This requires a working protocol, regular and consistent, between WorkSafe B.C. and mill owners with an unwavering focus on safer sawmills. Our government expects WorkSafe B.C. and mill owners to comply with safety practices.

The Minister for Labour has met with senior officials from WorkSafe B.C. As well, the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations has met with the forest industry CEO Task Force. They all agree more needs to be done and that this must be done as the utmost priority.

The next step will be a meeting of industry, labour and WorkSafe B.C. so that we can rectify any gaps in ensuring compliance, as well as explore the tools available for use when companies fail to comply. We expect this to occur within the next few weeks.

British Columbians expect more from employers in the wake of the tragedies in Burns Lake and Prince George because we all know what the consequences are.

On January 31 of this year WorkSafe B.C. concluded a three-month inspection of all active sawmills across B.C. So 249 inspections were undertaken related to combustible dust regulations, and 83 of 144 locations — that's 58 percent — inspected were in compliance.

So 61 employers, or 42 percent, were issued a total of 93 orders related to combustible dust, and 11 employers, under 10 percent, were issued a total of 13 stop-work orders due to unacceptable accumulations of secondary dust and other violations. One mill has had an $11,000 penalty levied against it. Penalties are also under consideration against more.

[1110]

Since receiving phase 3 of the sawmill inspections, the province has met with the forest CEO Task Force and WorkSafe B.C. We support WorkSafe B.C. using stop-work orders and penalties against companies who are not in compliance with dust management.

With respect to Bill C-45. Since 2004 Bill C-45 has ensured that the Criminal Code recognizes there are circumstances when criminal liability should be extended to organizations. The bill states that everyone who undertakes or has the authority to direct how another person does work or performs a task is under a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm to that person or any other person arising from that work or task.

A corporation charged with an offence cannot argue that the individuals occupying these positions actually had no real role in setting policy or managing the organization and therefore were not senior officers. The definition of a company's representative in Bill C-45 makes it clear that directors, chief executive officers and financial officers of a corporation are, by virtue of the position they hold, automatically senior officers.

The legislation further defines "representative" to also mean directors, partners, members, agents and contractors as well as employees. These representatives must be acting within the scope of their employment at the time of the alleged crime for charges to be considered by the Crown.

As for the intent necessary to find the organization guilty, Bill C-45 requires that the senior officer responsible, or senior officers collectively, must have departed markedly from the standard of care that could be expected.

In closing, every member of this House wants to make sure that when British Columbians go to work in the morning, they come home each and every night. We sympathize with those who have lost loved ones in these tragedies. No legislation, findings or penalties can ever compensate for that loss.

Our government takes workplace safety seriously and has made it a priority to examine ways to ensure effective, thorough investigations when workplace fatalities occur. We are committed to looking out for the safety of all British Columbians.

A. Dix: What the member for Prince George–Mackenzie…. I understand, as he does, having met with families several times from Babine and Lakeland, the pain involved. What the member just did was read, essentially, a bill note about Bill C-45. But laws don't just exist on the books. They have to exist in fact. They have to exist in workplaces.

Since this law came into effect…. It was much discussed. It was the subject of a royal commission. A decade of work after the Westray accident, there have been 1,350 workplace-related deaths in British Columbia, and not one time has anyone been charged under the law.

It's important, and it's good that government MLAs understand what the law is. But the law is not being enforced in British Columbia. We argue — and this motion argues — that that needs to change.

In the last number of weeks I've seen and talked about this situation with family members. The member for Surrey-Newton spoke of the men and women who have died — on the road to Abbotsford going to work, on a mushroom farm in Langley, at Babine and at Lakeland and in other incidents from Merritt to Vancouver Island.

We talk about those incidents. But the reality of those…. When you think of the Langley farmworkers incident, you think of the fact that the fines that were in
[ Page 2270 ]
fact made in those cases were never paid. You think of three men dead, two men permanently injured, 13 children, their wives and families and communities.

This is not good enough. That is why specific changes are required. It was the intent of the federal parliament that the Westray act be enforced in the provinces. In British Columbia it is not enforced.

That is why, as the member for Surrey-Newton suggests, we need a dedicated prosecutor working on these issues. That is why we need training for police. With the greatest of respect to what happened with respect to Babine — and we'll see with respect to charges for Lakeland, although criminal charges have been excluded — ten years into the Westray law this matter was bungled.

[1115]

All of those interesting things, all the laws and the regulations and the practices were in place, and they bungled the investigation. People died, and they bungled. That has to change. The idea of ensuring that the Crown, that the government as a matter of policy enforce the law through practical measures as those proposed by the member for Surrey-Newton is an idea whose time has come.

It will have, I believe — that's why the Westray law was passed in the federal parliament with enormous cross-partisan support — an impact on workplaces. When people know they'll be held accountable, they change their practices, and in this case, practices need to be changed.

When you have Hampton and the Babine case doing a press release blaming the whole incident on WorkSafe and not taking responsibility, what message does that send? Not a good one. What message does it send that 1,350 cases and zero charges — not zero prosecutions — are laid? What message does that send?

Here, I think, of course the responsibility for individual charges rests with Crown prosecutors. Of course that's the case. But we need to send a message and a direction that these issues matter, that resources need to be assigned, that change needs to happen, that no justice means no peace, and 1,350 cases and no charges means that the Westray law exists on the books, but it does not exist in the hearts and minds of the government of British Columbia.

That's why I ask support of all members of this House for the motion brought forward by the member for Surrey-Newton, a motion that seeks to do what we all wish to do — to ensure that the intention of law exists in fact, to ensure that workers are safe because the laws designed to protect them are applied, and when workers are put in jeopardy, when workers are killed, that people are held accountable, as the Westray law committed.

L. Larson: There is no one in this government who has not been touched by the tragic fire and loss of lives at the Babine mill. This government's immediate response of help for the victims, their families and the community demonstrated the high level of concern for all involved and the commitment to help move forward. Both the Premier and the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills responded immediately and in person to start the process needed to find answers and to work to ensure that both victims and their families could get the assistance they needed to deal with the aftermath of this tragedy.

Also, this government worked quickly to secure a supply of fibre, enabling the mill to continue to provide jobs so that the people of Burns Lake would not be forced to leave their community to find employment.

In January of this year, when the criminal justice branch clearly stated there would be no likelihood of conviction of any of the possible charges in this case, the Premier acted quickly to have the case reviewed and recommendations made. John Dyble issued his findings and recommendations on February 13, and the government has been clear that all of his recommendations must be implemented. They include measures to improve communication between investigating and prosecuting agencies; the improvement of policies, procedures and communications within WorkSafe B.C., including enhanced training; and the appointment of an independent adviser.

Leonard Doust, QC, has been appointed to that position. Mr. Doust is a well-known Canadian lawyer with expertise in investigations. He will oversee the implementation of Mr. Dyble's report recommendations and provide ongoing input. Mr. Doust has been clear that the decision of Crown counsel to approve or not approve charges is not a proper subject for a public inquiry based on British Columbia case law.

British Columbia's chief coroner, Lisa Lapointe, has announced that she will preside over the coroner's inquest into the Babine mill explosion. It is the chief coroner's view that the coroner's inquest is the best venue to address the many concerns and questions about how and why this explosion happened and what can be done to prevent a similar event in the future.

[1120]

The inquest will review policies, practices and responsibilities related to the mill operation, worker safety and all of the events leading up to tragedy.

The chief coroner has stated that the inquest will be an open, transparent, fact-finding hearing designed to thoroughly review all of the circumstances surrounding this fatal accident.

British Columbians and this government also expect more from employers in the wake of the tragedies in Burns Lake and Prince George. A coordinated effort is required to provide consistent protocols between mill owners and WorkSafe B.C. We have approached this issue with an unwavering focus on safer sawmills.

Coordinated discussions between the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations; the
[ Page 2271 ]
Minister Responsible for Labour; the forest industry CEO Task Force; and senior officials from WorkSafe B.C. are continuing.

Everyone agrees that more needs to be done and that safety is of the utmost priority. Our government will also sit down with employees and their representatives to talk about their concerns and suggested changes.

I will be supporting those government agencies and individuals best suited for the task of reviewing and investigating this issue so that they may quickly and, without interference, complete their mandate. I will not be supporting this motion.

G. Heyman: It has been ten years since Bill C-45, the Westray bill, was passed. With respect to the member for Boundary-Similkameen, this motion is not about whether or not we have an inquiry. This motion is about whether we prosecute effectively and put in place the policies and mechanisms needed to prosecute effectively — the law of the land — with respect to workplace deaths and injuries.

In 2007 Amarjit Kaur Bal, Sarabjit Kaur Sidhu and Sukhwinder Kaur Punia, three women, were killed on their way to work in a van that was overloaded and flipped on the highway — three women who will never again be with their families.

In 2008, a mushroom farm, an enclosed space. Ut Tran, Jimmy Chan and Han Pham — three workers who will never see their families again. The coroner's lawyer said that the deaths and the injuries might have been averted if the workers had known the risk and if the company had put in place proper safety procedures.

In 2012, Robert Luggi Jr. and Carl Charlie at Babine Forest Products. Shortly afterward, at Lakeland Mills, Alan Little and Glen Roche. In the days before the explosion, workers had raised concerns about the level and accumulation of sawdust and the fact that cleanup workers had been diverted to production.

The member for Prince George–Mackenzie would have us believe that things are fine, that the government is taking action to ensure that WorkSafe B.C. and other measures are taken to address hazards at work.

The fact is that things are not fine. Almost half of the mills that were checked by WorkSafe B.C. recently failed an audit to do with the accumulation of explosive dust. In 2011, 17,160 workers suffered serious injuries or died on the job.

Two years ago a worker fell to his death after the employer failed to provide safety instruction, training or supervision. What happened in that case? The employer was fined the grand total of $3,250. Is that what a worker's life is worth in B.C.?

If people were dying through negligence in car accidents on the highways, the public outcry and demand for government to take action to ensure that these cases were properly charged and prosecuted would be deafening. Yet, in the case of workers, it's treated as a cost of doing business.

[1125]

It's not just the law that needs to be enforced. We need to look at the background. Beginning in 2002, under this Liberal government, there was a move to deregulate the Workers Compensation Board regulations to remove one-third of the regulations — to remove the words "must," "shall" and "will" because they sounded like red tape — and let employers move toward a new form of health and safety action, performance-based as opposed to prescriptive. Clearly, it hasn't worked.

Among the regulations changed were first-aid regs, and it was the changes in those regs that were cited in the death of a faller a number of years ago. In 2012 there's been a 40 percent drop in administrative penalties and fewer inspection hours.

Whenever there is a serious accident or a tragic loss of life and the WCB undertakes a strategic industry enforcement initiative, it finds large numbers of employers who simply are not complying, whether it's mills, in the wake of the explosions, that aren't addressing dust; whether it's gas stations that aren't taking measures for workers working alone; or whether it's farmworker contractors who aren't keeping their vehicles safe.

It's time for the government to take action to support the law. This motion does that. Sympathy is not good enough. It is not good enough to treat workers' lives as a cost of doing business. If employers do that, if employers don't take the measures necessary to protect workers' health and safety to ensure that they can return home safe and sound at the end of the day, then the government and every member of this Legislature needs to support this motion to ensure that the law is upheld.

L. Reimer: Our government takes workplace safety seriously and has made it a priority to examine ways to ensure effective, thorough investigations when workplace fatalities occur. As government, as hard as it may seem sometimes, we have to respect the central principle of our democracy, which is the independence of the Crown prosecutors and the investigators, who reach their decisions based on the law.

The Criminal Code recognizes there are times when criminal liability should be attributed to organizations, including corporations and their representatives, in Bill C-45, section 217.1. The bill clearly states that everyone who undertakes or has the authority to direct how another person does work or performs a task is under a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm to that person or any other person, arising from that work or task.

As for the intent necessary to find the organization guilty, Bill C-45 requires that the senior officer responsible, or senior officers collectively, must have departed markedly from the standard of care that could be expected.
[ Page 2272 ]

While we may sometimes question or disagree with the individual decisions made by these independent branches, respecting those decisions, however, is an essential tenet of our democracy, which is why I cannot support this motion.

When faced with a tragedy, the important thing is to get the facts and then ensure the appropriate action is taken, and when there are lessons to be learned, that we learn them and we implement the necessary changes to better protect workers.

British Columbians expect more from employers in the wake of the tragedies in Burns Lake and Prince George, because we've all seen the horrendous impact these have had on families and our community.

As the member for Prince George–Mackenzie mentioned, on January 31, '14, WorkSafe B.C. concluded a three-month inspection of all active sawmills across British Columbia. So 249 inspections were undertaken related to combustible dust; 83 of 144 locations inspected, or 58 percent, were in compliance, and 61 employers — the other 42 percent — were issued a total of 93 orders related to combustible dust.

Eleven employers were issued a total of 13 stop-work orders due to unacceptable accumulations of secondary dust and other violations. One mill has had an $11,000 penalty levied against it, and penalties are under consideration against more.

Since receiving phase 3 of the sawmill inspections, the province has met with the forest CEO Task Force and WorkSafe B.C. There is broad compliance, but we absolutely have to do better.

[1130]

While we are taking the steps to keep workers safe, we do note that overall in B.C. the injury rate is the lowest it has been in 30 years, close to an historic low. Worker fatalities are down.

Between 2004 and 2013 the number of WorkSafe B.C. prevention officer positions budgeted increased by 50 percent, from 181 in 2004 to 272 in 2013. During the same period, the number of inspection reports written by WorkSafe B.C. prevention officers increased by 150 percent, from 15,940 in 2004 to 39,909 in 2013. Likewise, between 2004 and 2013 the number of orders written by WorkSafe B.C. increased by more than 200 percent, from 21,620 in 2004 to 68,483 in 2013.

As we grow our economy together, we have one value that we know we can never change: worker safety. Our message is clear. Worker safety is paramount, and if sawmills or any other organizations are not in compliance, there will be consequences. But an ongoing working protocol that is regular and consistent between WorkSafe B.C. and mill owners, with an unwavering focus on safer sawmills, is required.

We continue to meet with industry, labour and WorkSafe B.C. to address any existing gaps in ensuring compliance and to explore the tools available to us when companies fail to comply. Government is also happy to sit down with employees and their representatives to talk about their concerns and their suggested changes. Constant vigilance is required to ensure that workers stay safe, and this government is committed to remaining so.

K. Corrigan: Well, we've had two tragic explosions in this province, at Babine and Lakeland sawmills in the north — not one but two explosions where people's lives were lost, where others were seriously and permanently injured. Families have been ripped apart just as surely as the mills where these tragedies took place, as you would expect.

When you have these types of tragedies, you would expect the one comfort that could come from that is that justice would be done. The families of those that have been killed and injured have been looking for justice, and they do not feel that justice has been done.

We learned at the beginning of this year, earlier this year, that no criminal or WorkSafe charges would be laid in the Babine case. I want to read the Westray law in the Criminal Code. It says: "Every one who undertakes, or has the authority, to direct how another person does work or performs a task is under a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm to that person, or any other person, arising from that work or task."

That seems pretty clear and pretty simple to me, so I understand why those families feel like justice has not been done. If you look at that, there is clearly an obligation, and it seems very clear, as well, that that obligation was not met in the case of these explosions — certainly, the Babine case, where we know there will be no charges.

I'm going to support this resolution. I think it's a very simple resolution. Frankly, what we have had…. The main reason why that WorkSafe B.C. investigation failed was that it was not, I believe, looking with an eye to prosecutions when it went into that explosion site and, therefore, did not meet the more stringent requirements of that type of investigation. Thus it was barred from using much of the evidence.

I think it's a basic approach. It's a basic attitude, as if these are not potential crime scenes, and I think that's indicative of a larger problem. It's a mindset that is not conducive to protecting workers' lives.

I know that government has been doing some work, trying to increase coordination, looking at where the problems were. To give government some credit, the possibility of improvements and coordination and taking some responsibility perhaps was starting.

Therefore, it was completely shocking to learn, just a few months ago, that the most recent inspection reports indicate a continued exposure to unsafe levels of dust to the extent that mills had to be closed.

[1135]

Nearly half the sawmills of B.C., 61 of 144, still had
[ Page 2273 ]
dangerous levels of wood dust accumulation two years after the first disaster. Inspectors found equipment buried in wood dust, mill sections that hadn't seen a cleanup crew in months and damaged ventilation systems. In 13 cases, the hazards were severe enough to force temporary shutdowns due to the unacceptable accumulations of secondary dust and other significant violations which posed an immediate hazard to the health and safety of workers.

I find it astounding that members on the other side of this House can stand up and say everything is going just fine when two years after the first tragic explosion we have complete failure in terms of compliance and, obviously, continued possibility of tragedy in this province.

The response that I'm hearing from the other side is simply not good enough. We had deaths in 2007; we had workplace deaths in 2008, as you've heard from my colleagues, at a mushroom farm; and then deaths in these two mill explosions.

We know that many employers are good and have nothing but the best interests, are concerned citizens who care very much about their employees. But the very fact that we have such high levels of lack of compliance and high levels of dust indicates that the system is simply not working.

It seems clear that the only way to ensure compliance is to know that there will be real penalties paid not just by those who were hurt or killed, or their families, but by those who ultimately control and therefore should be responsible for the workplace. That is the owners and managers and directors of those companies.

L. Throness: On behalf of my constituents of Chilliwack-Hope, many of whom work in industries like forestry, construction, agriculture and other industries which can pose hazards from time to time, I want to speak to the following motion: "Be it resolved that this House urge the Government to pursue prosecutions of corporate executives and directors responsible for workers' health and safety in cases of negligence causing workplace death or serious injury."

I certainly appreciate the concern for worker health and safety brought by the member for Surrey-Newton. I think all members of this House appreciate that and consider the health and safety of our constituents to be of the highest importance. But I can't support this resolution, because I don't think the member is approaching the issue in the right way.

I want to talk for a moment about the separation of powers, which is a doctrine on which our system of government is based here in B.C. We respect a division between the Legislature, the executive and the judiciary so that one branch of the government is not in conflict with another. They are independent of each other to ensure that no one branch has too much power. So the courts don't matter to the executive. The executive can't tell politicians what to do, and politicians, most importantly, can't tell the judiciary what to do.

I would call this a foundational principle of our democracy, and I think British Columbians would agree with this. If you were to ask British Columbians what they think — "Do you agree that the independence of the courts should be respected?" — I think the answer would, of course, be yes. Secondly, if you were to ask, "Do you agree that the government has no place telling the justice system who should be charged and stand trial or, just as importantly, who should not be charged and who should not stand trial?" I think British Columbians would agree with that as well.

We have to respect the rule of law, no matter how difficult that might be in some cases. Of course, we recognize and have every sympathy for the many situations that this hon. member and other members have brought forward in this debate. It doesn't mean, though, that we can leave behind the independence of the Crown prosecutor. Government cannot interfere with investigators or dictate what should be the outcome of a particular case.

I would point out that the tools already exist in a federal statute, the Criminal Code, and under provincial law, as well, to launch prosecutions for negligence, and the Crown chooses to do so if there is a substantial likelihood of conviction. But the point is that here in the Legislature we're not allowed to make that determination.

We can't make that decision, which is not to say that British Columbians expect anything less of our government than to aggressively promote the health and safety of our workforce. For example, when people think of promoting a safe working environment, I think of prevention. What kinds of things are we doing to prevent accidents in the workplace? I want to bring up a thing like the Prevention Manual from WorkSafe B.C.

[1140]

It lays out rules covering many categories of areas of prevention that employers must abide by — things like workplace illumination, workplace conduct, chemical exposure, electrical safety, protective clothing, requirements for machinery and equipment, like rollover protection equipment. The list is detailed and very exhaustive.

WorkSafe also charges employers higher premiums according to their rate of accidents, which is an important preventative measure. And there are other administrative penalties that WorkSafe can impose that give employers a financial incentive to prevent accidents and maintain a safe workplace.

We're already doing a lot to prevent accidents. I would point out that the former Speaker said that we do have investigations. We are doing investigations. We're closing mills for non-compliance with WorkSafe B.C. rules, and that's a good thing. It's preventative.

In the recent inquiry that took place, there were a number of recommendations that were made by the Deputy Minister to the Premier, and our government accepted them all. One of them called for closer cooper-
[ Page 2274 ]
ation between investigating and prosecuting agencies, which could, in part, have the very effect that the member wants.

Our government is taking ongoing action in terms of prevention and investigation. We're also taking action as far as we can to enhance cooperation between WorkSafe and the judiciary without breaching the independence of the judiciary, which is that important principle.

The police will always be there to investigate breaches of the Criminal Code. The Crown will always be there to assess evidence and lay charges, and the courts will always be there to conduct trials and come to verdicts in cases of criminal negligence on the part of employers.

Once again, we continue in this House to share sympathies for the tragic loss and other losses that have occurred, and we will continue to support efforts to rebuild the community of Burns Lake.

B. Routley: I listen to this debate, and we really haven't come very far from the Dirty '30s, when forest workers used to get killed and they would prop them up beside a stump and tell the rest of the crew: "Just work on. Just carry on. Everything's fine. It's just the cost of doing business."

Workers had to fight over the years. In fact, part of the reason there is a union movement in British Columbia was because workers were getting killed on the job over and over and over again. Employers weren't acting on behalf of those workers and their families, so they had to fight. They had to form unions to prevent that kind of behaviour, where it was okay to prop a friend up against a stump.

I've talked to the old-timers that actually had that happen to them. I've been through the experience myself in the forest industry. I remember prior to the Westray bill what happened when I was the safety chairman at the Youbou mill, and 550 people worked there. Young Patrick Crutchmeier, 18 years old — he might as well have been left a huge, big mousetrap.

It was the incompetence and negligence of that company. There was a new tray system in the veneer plant. We had written orders that said: "Make sure you put in lockout procedures and train the workers on the new procedures." You know what they did instead? They sped up production.

They got the job done adequately enough to be able to crank up production on Monday morning, and they slapped it together. That 18-year-old man went in there, and all he did was touch a little piece the size of a pencil and down came 2½ tonnes and crushed the life out of that young man. Right there was an example of absolute negligence.

Then I went through it again just a few years ago with Ted Gramlich. We had the forest industry in British Columbia deciding they needed to save a few dollars. We've got sympathetic administration, and that's what I'm hearing over on the other side of the table. It's sympathetic administration playing their violin music of: "It's all okay. We're sure the employers are taking care of things. We've got WorkSafe B.C. Oh, we happened to cut a whole bunch of the regulations, but we've got WorkSafe B.C. on the job."

They just happen to fail to do any of the things necessary to be able to hold people accountable in British Columbia. It is totally unacceptable to working people to see the behaviour that goes on, the lack of concern. I'm talking negligence.

[1145]

There are safe employers. I've seen them myself. But I've also seen this. When the Westray bill came in, you know what happened? I saw a manager of a sawmill who had the audacity, at one time, to go down and tell his crew: "Safety isn't number 1. Production is number 1, and that'll pay for number 2, which is safety." He actually said that to a crew, one of the mills right here on Vancouver Island. But he had a whole new attitude when he was told by his CEO: "You could go to jail. There's new legislation. There's a new sheriff in town."

Well, guess what. We found out the new sheriff is a toothless wonder. In British Columbia we haven't had a single charge of anybody. And it's worse than that. The penalty paid in B.C.'s role, on average in 2012, for a death was less than $22,000. In a report by WorkSafe B.C., out of 149 worker deaths accepted for compensation payments in 2012, six prompted fines — for a total of less than $129,000.

When I think of all of the people that I have seen die…. Ted Gramlich, that faller…. Imagine a faller being sent up to an area to fall trees for heli-logging. But he was above the fog, and when the tree kicked back and crushed him, he was lying there bleeding, his leg crushed beyond belief. He was bleeding. That man probably would have lived if the contractor would have had a proper safety plan.

No safety plan. They hadn't even thought about the possibility that this man could get hurt and that then you would need a helicopter to get him out of there. No plan. We need this kind of action. We need real action in British Columbia, not a sympathetic administration like we've got over there.

M. Bernier: There's no doubt that workplace safety is a subject that's top of mind for our government, and I know it concerns every member here in this chamber. When British Columbians say goodbye to their families in the morning, obviously, we all in this House want to ensure they get to go home safe — have a good day at work and go home safe to their families.

Workplace safety is a subject that this government takes very seriously. We feel for any worker who has experienced a workplace accident, and our sympathies go out to their families and to those who have lost a loved one in a workplace tragedy.
[ Page 2275 ]

We know this is a very difficult and sensitive topic, and I can't imagine the grief that families go through when they've lost a loved one in a workplace accident. Of course, we're all working together to ensure the worksites throughout the province are safe and accident-free. However, we must realize that when an accident occurs at a worksite, there's a central principle that needs to be followed to ensure that the investigation is effective, that it's thorough and, to me, most importantly, that it's independent.

Our government is committed to ensuring that any workplace accident investigation can be conducted by the agencies and Crown prosecutors free from any form of intervention from government or from political interference. For some people after an accident happens, that might be hard to rationalize. However, independence of our Crown prosecutors and our criminal liability investigations is a central tenet of our democracy, and it should always remain that way.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't be learning when we've had tragedies in the workplace. In the aftermath after the Burns Lake and Prince George tragedies, I know for everybody in this House…. I believe we were saddened. We were shocked. In today's environment in British Columbia it might be hard to believe in this day and age that an explosion like that could occur at a modern sawmill.

However, since these tragedies, WorkSafe B.C. has conducted three-month investigations of all the active sawmills across British Columbia to ensure the compliance to the workplace safety regulations was being followed, to prevent future accidents. Thankfully, we can say that since then, none have occurred.

[1150]

Consistent monitoring is important, and WorkSafe B.C. continues to increase the number of workplace investigations by increasing the number of preventative officers, by their positions. We have a 50 percent increase in the number of positions out there, and we have a 150 percent increase since 2004 of WorkSafe B.C. written reports.

These are real, tangible investments that WorkSafe B.C. is doing here in British Columbia to ensure that we have a safe work environment. Not to be putting too many stats out there — because I think it's important; it's an emotional issue — we've got the lowest injury rate in this province in 30 years.

Here's an important point, I think, that we've missed today. Workers here in British Columbia, if they feel they are in an unsafe work environment due to hazards that could jeopardize their health and safety or workers' health and safety, have the right to refuse work. They have the right to report this to their employer, and they cannot be disciplined or be at risk of losing their position for raising these concerns if they are legitimate and reasonable concerns.

Everyone needs to be a part of workplace safety, and by working together, employers, workers and government agencies can find solutions and proactively resolve safety hazards and unsafe workplaces here in the province.

The main point should be: let's do everything we can to avoid the accidents to begin with. Let's continue to keep the dialogue open and find productive and reasonable solutions for safety. Increasing compliance and putting in place proactive monitoring by employers and workers will help prevent workplace accidents before they happen.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

It is essential that as we grow the economy together here in British Columbia, we are doing so in a safe environment and that our workers can go to work and come home safe. Simply put, safe workplaces are productive workplaces, and that is what this government is promoting.

J. Darcy: I remember like it was yesterday the day of the disaster at Westray in Nova Scotia. Those of us involved in working for workplace health and safety across the country were reminded once again of the dangers that workers face when they go to work every day — whether that's in a mine, in a mill, in a health care facility.

I remember gathering, months later, with families and members of the community of those affected in Pictou county. I remember very well the resolve, in particular, of the Steelworkers union at that time, saying that they would not rest until there was legislation in this country that ensured that those responsible for ensuring workers' health and safety were held to account when there were incidents of serious injury or deaths in a workplace. That was in 1992, and it took 12 years before we saw a law that said that.

What's happened in the province since the Westray bill was passed? Well, the colleagues who have spoken before me have talked about that in very human terms. What have we seen in British Columbia? In ten years since the bill was passed: 1,350 deaths in the workplace.

These were all workers who kissed their families goodbye in the morning or the afternoon or whenever it was they were going on shift. They went to work to do a hard day's work, to bring home pay to support their families. Later on during their shift, whatever that was, their families learned the tragic news that that person was not coming home at night — with all the devastation that that means for those families.

Now, we've heard an awful lot from members on the other side about why they should not support the amendment that our Labour critic has put forward. We've heard the stats that say things are getting better. We've heard that over and over again.

[1155]

We've heard about legal issues, about separation of powers. We've heard about the importance of not med-
[ Page 2276 ]
dling in the independence of Crown prosecutors.

The fact of the matter is that the system is not working. The system for ensuring that workers have the right to go to work and know that everything humanly possible is being done to ensure that they can come home safe and sound to their families at night — that system is not working. Otherwise, we would not have 150 workers every single year in British Columbia dying as a result of workplace injuries and tens of thousands more being the victims of serious workplace injuries.

Members before me have spoken about who some of those workers were — the three farmworkers who died tragically in a van going to work on a highway near Abbotsford. The van that they were in was completely inadequate, and the inadequacy of the safety conditions in that van was directly responsible for those three farmworkers' deaths. Yet the driver was fined $2,000 for driving without a proper licence and without reasonable consideration and faced no criminal charges.

In that case, someone who was responsible for driving in a vehicle, in an incident involving a vehicle responsible for serious injuries or deaths, would be criminally responsible. Why are workers in a workplace en route to farm fields regarded any differently? In the case of the mushroom farm, what happened to the people responsible? They were fined $350,000. They declared bankruptcy, didn't pay a penny and didn't go to jail.

There is something seriously something wrong with the system. It is not serving workers in the workplace.

It is also not the case that people are not penalized for speaking out. We had a situation very recently in health care, in a psych facility, where a nurse who spoke out repeatedly was suspended for three days.

Those who are responsible for workplace injuries and deaths must be held accountable. Therefore, I speak in support of this amendment.

J. Darcy moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2014: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada